Twitter Faces the “Nightmare” of Being Forced into Free Speech

Twitter LogoBelow is my column in the Hill on the bid of Elon Musk to buy Twitter and its implications for free speech. The increasingly alarmist arguments of the left have continued to mount. On MSNBC, Democratic strategist Danielle Moodie declared “I’m going to be honest, Elon Musk is a danger to Twitter and to freedom of speech.” In other words, more free speech is the death of free speech. She is not alone in such Orwellian takes on the Musk bid for Twitter.

Here is the column:

Twitter’s board of directors gathered this week to sign what sounds like a suicide pact. It unanimously voted to swallow a “poison pill” to tank the value of the social media giant’s shares rather than allow billionaire Elon Musk to buy the company.

The move is one way to fend off hostile takeovers, but what is different in this case is the added source of the hostility: Twitter and many liberals are apoplectic over Musk’s call for free speech protections on the site.

Company boards have a fiduciary duty to do what is best for shareholders, which usually is measured in share values. Twitter has long done the opposite. It has virtually written off many conservatives — and a large portion of its prospective market — with years of arbitrary censorship of dissenting views on everything from gender identity to global warming, election fraud and the pandemic. Most recently, Twitter suspended a group, Libs of Tik Tok, for “hateful conduct.” The conduct? Reposting what liberals have said about themselves.

The company seemingly has written off free speech too. Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal was asked how Twitter would balance its efforts to combat misinformation with wanting to “protect free speech as a core value” and to respect the First Amendment. He responded dismissively that the company is “not to be bound by the First Amendment” and will regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.” Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”

Not surprisingly, selling censorship is not a big hit with most consumers, particularly from a communications or social media company. The actions of Twitter’s management have led to roller-coastering share values. While Twitter once reached a high of about $73 a share, it is currently around $45. (Musk was offering $54.20 a share, representing a 54 percent premium over the share price the day before he invested in the company.)

Notably, Musk will not trigger the poison pill if he stays below 15 percent ownership of the company. He could push his present stake up to 14.9 percent and then negotiate with other shareholders to take greater control.

Another problem is that Twitter long sought a private buyer under former CEO Jack Dorsey. If Musk increases his bid closer to $60, the board could face liability in putting its interests ahead of the company’s shareholders.

Putting aside the magical share number, Musk is right that the company’s potential has been constrained by its woke management. For social media companies, free speech is not only ethically but economically beneficial — because the censorship model only works if you have an effective monopoly in which customers have no other choice. That is how Henry Ford could tell customers, back when he controlled car-making, that they could have any color of Model T “as long as it’s black.”

Of course, the Model T’s color was not a critical part of the product. On the other hand, Twitter is a communications company selling censorship — and opposing free speech as a social media company is a little like Ford opposing cars.

The public could be moving beyond Twitter’s Model T philosophy, however, with many people looking for access to an open, free forum for discussions.

Censorship — or “content modification,” as used in polite company — is not value maximizing for Twitter, but it is status enhancing for executives such as Agrawal. It does not matter that consumers of his product want less censorship; the company has become captive to its executives’ agendas.

Twitter is not alone in pursuing such self-defeating values. Many in the mainstream media and many on the left have become some of the loudest advocates for corporate censorship. The Washington Post’s Max Boot, for example, declared, “For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.” MSNBC’s Katy Tur warned that reintroducing free speech values on Twitter could produce “massive, life- and globe-altering consequences for just letting people run wild on the thing.”

Columnist and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich went full Orwellian in explaining why freedom is tyranny. Reich dismissed calls for free speech and warned that censorship is “necessary to protect American democracy.” He then delivered a line that would make Big Brother blush: “That’s Musk’s dream. And Trump’s. And Putin’s. And the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth. For the rest of us, it would be a brave new nightmare.”

The problem comes when you sell fear for too long and at too high a price. Recently, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) agreed with MSNBC analyst John Heilemann that Democrats have to “scare the crap out of [voters] and get them to come out.”

That line is not selling any better for the media than it is for social media, however. Trust in the media is at a record low, with only 7 percent expressing great trust in what is being reported. The United States ranks last in media trust among 46 nations.

Just as the public does not want social media companies to control their views, it does not want the media to shape its news. In one recent poll, “76.3% of respondents from all political affiliations said that ‘the primary focus of the mainstream media’s coverage of current events is to advance their own opinions or political agendas.’”

Thus, an outbreak of free speech could have dire consequences for many in the political-corporate-media triumvirate. For them, the greatest danger is that Musk could be right and Twitter would become a more popular, more profitable company selling a free speech product.

Poison pill maneuvers are often used to force a potential buyer to negotiate with the board. However, Twitter’s directors (who include Agrawal and Dorsey) have previously limited their product to advance their own political preferences. This time, federal law may force them to fulfill their fiduciary duties, even at the cost of supporting free speech. The problem for the board will occur when the “nightmare” of free speech comes in at $60 a share.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

111 thoughts on “Twitter Faces the “Nightmare” of Being Forced into Free Speech”

  1. Maybe the most truthful model of how American government really works is the movie “Animal House” student government with it’s “double-secret probation” – those on covert probation lists not aware of their covert status.

    The irony is, it’s extremely difficult to find an uncensored

  2. It seems the entire online social media business model is broken. Freedom of speech will happen but maybe never online. Those that value free speech may drop out of the online forum altogether.

    Decades ago comedians, like Lenny Bruce, were arrested for performing in “private members only” clubs not on public forums. A public forum may simply be impossible without being preyed upon by both corporate and government censors.

    Might be better to just spend hard earned money at your local restaurant or bar, drop online forums that censor or covertly punish legal First Amendment activity. Free speech on a public forum may simply be impossible.

  3. DeSantis Hard-Pressed To Explain Purge Of Math Books

    Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday defended the state’s decision to disqualify dozens of proposed math textbooks for broaching critical race theory and other “impermissible” topics while fending off demands from Democrats to release examples of allegedly “indoctrinating” information.

    The Florida Department of Education on Friday rejected some 54 math books from state classrooms, a move that drew national attention when DeSantis claimed that the proposals from publishing companies contained lessons on “indoctrinating concepts like race essentialism” for elementary students.

    Asked on Monday what a critical race theory math lesson could look like, DeSantis said “there’s a number of reasons” the state turned down the textbook proposals aside from that issue. The majority of rejected textbooks were for kindergarten through fifth grade.

    Democrats are pressing the DeSantis administration to provide examples of what the state labeled as “references to critical race theory” embedded in math texts proposed for Florida’s 2.8 million public school students.

    Education officials claim the publishers ignored the state’s guidelines and attempted to slip “rebranded instructional materials” and other “divisive concepts” or “unsolicited strategies of indoctrination” into the books. To that end, 28 proposed math textbooks — or 21 percent — were left off the adoption list due to “prohibited topics,” including critical race theory.

    Florida Department of Education officials have not yet provided examples from textbooks deemed “impermissible” under state standards but on Monday released the list of books that failed to make the cut, including works from major companies like Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and McGraw Hill.

    Edited From:

    1. “The Florida Department of Education on Friday rejected some 54 math books from state classrooms . . .”

      If you don’t like politics injected into education, then get education out of politics.

      Or is it that the Left only objects to right-wing politics in education?

    2. Are you upset that your book of graffiti and perversions took from the W. Hollywood bathroom stalls was banned from math class?

  4. F.Y.I.

    Ownership of ‘Common Shares’ over 15% invokes the poison-pill in accordance to their By-Laws.
    But the Class-B shares (e.g.: supershares) are what make the sale lucrative ($) to Founders, which do not effect the poison-pill formula.

    i.e.: a Common share typically is a 1 to 1 representation (1 share = 1 vote).
    A Class-B supershare may be 1 to 50 (1 share = 50 votes) Such as the members of the Ford Family and to be fair a lot of Other savvy Founding Family Corps.

    So in theory Musk could buy all the Supershares of Twitter (or Ford – but No way Ha-ha) and have Control over of the Company.

  5. So the left is all atwitter about a rich man owning Twitter and allowing free speech on the Twitter platform. They warn us of to much power by the rich through ownership a media platform. Of course they have no problem with Jeff Bezos owning The New York Times. This must be the funniest joke in the world.

    1. All those newspapers must look alike to you.

      Bezos doesn’t own the NYT.

  6. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
    1st Amendment to the United States Constitution -[1]
    Only Congress can make laws – Article 1 Section 7 [1]
    “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
    Article 4 of the existing United States Constitution [1]
    “Because the Constitution is ”a superior paramount law,” it is unchangeable by ordinary legislative means and ”a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law.” [2]
    Based upon these above facts, no court nor any government bureaucracy has the authority to make any law, rule or regulation concerning any form of censorship or any infringement on freedom of speech.
    Numerous times in history the Supreme Court has issued opinions that were in fact in direct violation of the Constitution.
    It is the obligation of “we the people” to enforce the existing United States Constitution upon the governments.
    Everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty by a court of law.
    The are laws created by Congress concerning slander and defamation of character, which if anyone is proven guilty of breaching these laws, they are held accountable for what they said or done.


  7. Meanwhile over at where Turley works, it states:

    “The Hill has removed its comment section, as there are many other forums for readers to participate in the conversation. We invite you to join the discussion on Facebook and Twitter.”

    Talk about censoring its readers! Maybe Turley should remove the comments section here as well and invite us to join the discussion on Facebook and Twitter? How does that sound? We’re all agreed?

    1. The Good Professor doesn’t own and furthermore, you can’t censor speech when no outlet for speech is offered. This is not sponsorship.

      1. I thought Turley did own That’s what people are saying. Not just some but a lot of people. Are you certain he does not?

        “Removing” a platform to speak is not censorship? Interesting. So you would not disapprove if Turley would cut-off our platform to speak here? And you think that Turley would agree that he was NOT censoring us?

        1. Jeff, sadly the comments section on The Hill was ruined by idiots like you and Anonymous commenting 1000 times a day and screaming at anyone that was to the right of Lenin. This is the “heckler’s” veto that morons like you and Anonymous are striving for on this great site.

  8. Why Total Free-Speech Ain’t Such A Good Idea

    The media outlet InfoWars filed for bankruptcy in Texas on Sunday in the face of mounting legal pressure over comments made by founder and host, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

    Jones, who’s repeatedly called the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut a hoax, has been sued several times by the victims’ family members and others for defamation and emotional distress. Twenty children and six educators were killed in the attack.

    His comments and similar ones made by other InfoWars employees are the primary cause of the “financial distress” now facing InfoWars and its related holding companies, according to the chapter 11 bankruptcy filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Texas.

    InfoWars, which described itself in court records as a “conspiracy-oriented website and media company,” said it had $50,000 or less in assets and between $1 million and $10 million in liabilities.


    Longtime readers of Turley’s columns tend to notice coincidental stories in the news related to column topics but unmentioned by the professor. One is hard-pressed to imagine that Turley heard nothing about the Info-Wars bankruptcy. Yet Turley appeals to generally the same followers as Alex Jones. In fact, one could say that Turley is merely an academic version of Alex Jones; distinctly more subtle but peddling many of the same falsehoods.

    1. If Turley would ever descend from his Ivory Tower to deign to take a question from us mere mortals, I would ask where does he draw the clear bright line between civil speech and uncivil speech as per his “civility rule” on this blog? He knows he dare not because it is impossible to draw a line that won’t piss off Trumpists.

      1. JEFF,

        that’s the Blog Stooge who keeps telling you to kill yourself. He is alsoThinkthrough, James, Hullbobby Monument Colorado, Feldman, Ralph Chappell, Margot Ballhere, Mistress Addams, Alma Carman and many, many more.

        Turley’s relationship to the stooge is very mysterious. Turley may not employ him directly, but The Stooge has essentially been the ‘voice’ of these threads for at least 2 years. That’s how long we’ve been tracking the puppets.

        In a normal America, an academic like Turley would do everything possible to keep stooges like The Stooge away from his blog. Yet Turley is oddly content to let The Stooge harass commenters with behavior that no teacher would ever tolerate in a classroom.

        1. How do you know that all these personas are one and the same? And worse, that Turley is in on it? That sounds like some kind of conspiracy theory. It’s more likely that these are just your run-of-the-mill, common, old and everyday Trumpists. We know they are out there. We see them. I don’t believe Turley has a hand in this. It’s apparent that he does not give a crap about the state of this blog. His civility rule is more honored in the breach thanks to Darren.

          Is it any wonder that Turley does not engage us? If he did, he would lose his plausible deniability that he had no idea that his blog had become the uncivil cesspool that his civility rule was designed to prevent.

          1. JEFF, we’ve been following the blog much longer than you. That’s how we know these things.

            The Stooge was mainly known as ‘Estovir’ during his first year on these threads. Estovir was more interested in attacking than debating. He’d snipe at liberals, then melt away. Absurdly Estovir would end each day with long, boring articles from Catholic journals to show how pious he is.

            Then, about 2 years ago this Easter, Estovir became suddenly less visible. But in his place a gang of puppets sprang out of nowhere bearing all the names that are still daily fixtures. And as I said yesterday, if you try debating any of those names, successive puppets keep popping up ignoring any points you’ve made already. That’s one sure way to win an argument: ‘Keep coming back with different names ignoring previous points’.

            1. There is no winning or losing on this blog. Both sides are talking past each other with very few exceptions. The only way for us to forge any agreement would be to have a moderator which could call fouls when one side crosses the line. Turley is the only one we all could agree upon, but he won’t soil himself by descending into this mud pit.

              One can hardly blame him. He is too intelligent to get involved in our mess. Instead, he pretends that he is so very proud of his “blog family.” If the truth be told, we are not a family. It’s a good thing we are not in the same physical room. Is there any doubt a fight would ensue? Expletives hurled, chairs thrown, and weapons brandished.

              We are at each other’s throats.

            2. “JEFF, we’ve been following the blog much longer than you”


              It that a royal “we,” or do you have MPD?

          2. JeffSilberman, are you pointing out some mental disjunction of Anonymous? What is strange is that she points out that Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist but she doesn’t recognize that she has many conspiracy theories of her own. There coming to take me away ha ha. Their coming to take me away.

            1. Mental Dysfunction. Doesn’t your mobile correct your spelling for you? Mine does.

        2. Anonymous has often complained that she is being censored on this blog but now she is calling for the censorship of others who post here. Sounds like the ramblings of a true Totalitarian. Somehow she just can’t see the irony.

        3. Anonymous, the evil clones are out to get you. When you wake in the morning the evil clones are there. When you set for your evening meal the clones are trying to take your food. At long last when you lay your head on the pillow at night the evil clones gnaw at the every fiber of your brain. Finally out of complete exhaustion you mumble Stooge, Stooge, Stooge as you fade into a fitful sleep. A forth Valium might help.

        4. This from a poster who is unwilling to committ to an identity ?

    2. Anonymous, Alex Jones has a right to say what he wants to say. I do appreciate that you think that The New York Times should be prohibited from publishing a story if it’s not true. My belief is that neither the Times nor Alex Jones should be prohibited from producing their reporting. Both of these outlets have been successfully sued for libel. The problem is that you want it to be you who decides what should be published and what should not be allowed. In your estimation false reporting should be allowed by The Times but not by Alex Jones. Anyone wha has read your post in the past knows that my assessment of your postings is correct. Anonymous wants to decide or else!

      1. Unlike InfoWars, the NYT has not filed for bankruptcy protection in an effort to avoid paying the damages from losing libel suits.

        Anyone who has read your posts in the past knows that one of the ways you troll is by pretending that people believe things that exist only in your imagination.

        1. And filing bankruptcy protection means that one is more culpable or guilty..or something like that? lol. The NYT’s have been sued (and lost or settled) countless times over the years. Alex Jones, not so much.

            1. Anonymous, why do you refuse to say that The New York Times has payed out millions of dollars due to the disinformation it has produced. The Times has very deep pockets so hasn’t gone bankrupt due to there loses. On the other hand, Alex Jones does not have a resource of unending funds. I am not defending Alex Jones but I believe that Alex Jones and The Times are equal distributers of the untrue. Your concern is superficial when you condemn one but not the other. Different day same slant.

        2. NYT has paid out much more in defamation claims that Jones.

          Jones does not have some billionaire footing the bill for all his errors.

          I am not familiar with the Jones case – but what I know was that Jones purportedly lost a defamation case for saying that Sandy Hook was a hoax.

          That is a stupid claim, but it is not defamation.
          Absent a constractual relationship between parties – defamation is one of few instances in which a private party can hold another private party financially responsible for what they say.

          So any award sounds like error on the part of the courts.

          But maybe you know something I don’t.

      2. TiT says:

        Why be civil, right? Anything goes! So you reject Turley’s civility rule, correct?

        1. I reject your and Turley’s concept of what civility is.
          Forcing others to speak as you wish is NOT civil.

      3. TiT,

        I neglected to print that which I was referring:

        “Alex Jones has a right to say what he wants to say.”

        Why be civil, right? Anything goes! So you reject Turley’s civility rule, correct?

      4. I do not know the details of the Jones cases.

        Alex Jones is a real tin foil hat conspiracy nut.

        But he is useful – because he is right more often than the MSM today.

        That does not mean anyone shoudl trust him – just as you should not trust the MSM.

        I am disturbed about what little I know about the Jones legal cases.

        Lying – egregiously about Sandy Hook is NOT libel.

        Defamation requires a lie about a PERSON that harms their reputation.

        Lying about Sandy Hook does no harm anyone’s reputation but Jones.

    3. No one doubts that Alex Jones is a nut case.

      What should scare the hell out of you is that he has been right more often than the MSM.

      When the real tin foil hat nutjobs get things right more than Anderson Cooper or Chris Cuomo – there is something deeply wrong with our media.

      Next why exactly do you think that Turley has some obligation to cover some tiny little media company going belly up in texas over a few thousand dollars – when Twitter is facing a 41B takeover ?

      This is not apples and oranges it is dust and mountains.

    4. “Turley is merely an academic version of Alex Jones”

      Nice smear campaign.

    5. Anonymous points out a grest reason FOR free speech. Jones’ speech is resulting in his conviction and penalty.

  9. Again and again Turley gets his panties in a bunch over free speech, but says nothing on book bans. Florida just threw out math books because of CRT? Of course Florida won’t say what the books are or how they are described as CRT. Libraries and schools are being attacked by right-wing zealots on a daily basis, and what do we hear from Turley?………crickets. Turley’s concern is only that the right-wing can lie and distort all they want in the name of their version of their free speech.

    1. Fish they never banned books, they just failed to choose some. Big difference.

      1. So when they take out a book by a gay person or a person of color they “choose” not to have that book on a shelf, right?

        1. So every book published by a gay person or person of color must be carried in every school library in the country ?

          Though this started about Math Text’s not library books.

          How many math texts must a 5th grader carry ? Must they have one from every person of color who ever wrote a math text or ever gay person ?

          Why not the text most suited to education students at his school and grade level in MATH – why is the color, sexual orientation, or political philosophy of the author of a math text at issue.

          Math texts should teach math – not DIE nonsense.

          If you are a teacher and you are wasting students time teaching them things that are of little use in their lives – you should be fired.

          We are graduating way too many kids that can not read and write or add and subtract. Much less have any grasp of actual history or critical thinking.

          When this country is graduating students that all have the fundimentals down solid- then we can talk about what is next.

          In the meantime get a math text that teaches MATH.

      2. It would not matter if they banned books – the first amendment is not implicated

        I would prefer that all schools were private – as much of this nonsense would go away.

        If AntiRacist HS chose to use CRT math texts – that would be between the school and the parents.

        But the selection of math texts for a public school is more complicated – the school is not a private actor,
        kids are not adult and ultimately a choice of texts has to be made. Something will lose out.

        CRT not in Math class – fine with that.

    2. You’re a a foolish or gullible person. You couldn’t be less educated on free speech. You comments regarding Florida’s “ban” shows your incredible inaptness at using your brain.

      1. You’re a small minded little man who would rather live in a alternate reality than one with facts or truth.

        1. @FishWings; You get off on little children being forced fed gay and tranny propaganda in school? What makes you sick phuckers tick?

    3. FishWings, you are absolutely correct in saying that some books are being prohibited in school libraries. Here is a sample of what is being prohibited. There is another book that says that white people are the Devil. Its title is “Anti- Racist Baby” and it’s recommended for children under five years old. I am sure you’ll get a thrill out of depiction of the white man being the Devil. Are these the books you are talking about? I find it interesting that people on the left tell us about the banning of books but they never are specific about what books are being banned and what age group they are appropriate for. I understand. They have given you your talking points and you’ve fallen right in line. By the way, both books are not banned and are available on Amazon.

      1. TiT,
        I do think to a degree some books should be prohibited in certain school libraries. Books that teach very young children (K-3rd grade) to hate themselves or others based on their skin color or that they are gender fluid. They do not even understand the concept of what gender fluid is. They still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy.
        Now, if you are a grown, mature adult, and want to read these books, by all means, please do.
        I think this is the reason why so many parents are upset at the idea they do not have a say in their children’s education.
        And it reflects in voting. Many parents who put a high premium on education, like Asians or Indians, are voting against this kind of wokeism.
        Good for them.

        Again, I have no issue with these books being available to mature adults. I would like to know what these authors think. Just like I would like to see a debate on a college campus of a topic presented by both sides of an issue, without one side using the heckling veto to silence the other side. How are we to understand each other if one side does everything it can, to include violence to keep the other side of an issue silent?
        What is the ANTIFA mantra? You have the right to free speech, and I have the right to shut you up with violence, or something like that?

        1. A school library has limited resources – it is not the internet with near infinite storage.

          Choices must be made – librarians must say no thousands of times for each time they say yes.
          That is not censorship.
          The books in the library should be chosen to support the curicula,
          and if that curricula is at odds with the preferences of parents – the curricula and the books should be gone.

          Even adult public libraries must make choices – and they must say no far more than yes, but the serve a differnt purpose, and have different criteria

    4. You do not seem to grasp that schools are government, and kids are not adults with the same rights.

      As an adult I am free to own and buy pornography. But it is a crime to share that with a kid.

      A school library buying pornography would be equally guilty.

      Hopefully you are not so clueless as to grasp that I have demonstrated that Schools are not the same as adults – they do not have rights.
      And many things that adults have the right to do kids do not.

      Lastly what is anything besides Math doing in a math text ?

  10. “Twitter Faces the “Nightmare” of Being Forced into Free Speech”

    – Professor Turley


    Americans face the “nightmare” of WWIII because of the actions the U.S. failed to take.

    Americans face the “nightmare” of being forced into the dominion of the Constitution, which establishes the maximal freedom of individuals under a severely limited and restricted government, including the freedom of speech.

    Americans face the “nightmare” of irrevocably abrogating the entire unconstitutional communist American welfare state.


    Whatever shall Americans do?

    – General Patton was right – the West should have conquered the USSR and communist Russia at the end of WWII.

    – General MacArthur was right – the West should have “returned” with a vengeance and conquered communist North Korea at the end of the Korean War.

    – Joe McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) was right, there are autocratic, anti-freedom, anti-American communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) everywhere throughout the United States – FDR and the likes of Alger Hiss among them (“Witness” – Whitaker Chambers).

    – Joshua was right:

    Joshua 6 (NIV)

    6 Now the gates of Jericho were securely barred because of the Israelites. No one went out and no one came in.

    2 Then the Lord said to Joshua, “See, I have delivered Jericho into your hands, along with its king and its fighting men. 3 March around the city once with all the armed men. Do this for six days. 4 Have seven priests carry trumpets of rams’ horns in front of the ark. On the seventh day, march around the city seven times, with the priests blowing the trumpets. 5 When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have the whole army give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the army will go up, everyone straight in.”

    20 When the trumpets sounded, the army shouted, and at the sound of the trumpet, when the men gave a loud shout, the wall collapsed; so everyone charged straight in, and they took the city. 21 They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.

    27 So the Lord was with Joshua, and his fame spread throughout the land.

    1. And don’t forget how Jesus handled his illegal immigrants at the border of his city in Revelation Chapter 20.
      Whenever leftists try the ‘what would Jesus do’ argument, I always direct them to that.

        1. Have you read Revelation 20. It is about Jesus establishing his city of Jerusalem on earth under his authority as king with his ‘citizens’ inside the city. The lost are forever excluded,but try to force entry into the city. Sounds like illegal border jumpers to me.

  11. This will make all the American hating libs happy. A White Author’s Book About Black Feminism Was Pulled After a Social Media Outcry.


  12. Other sharks are in the bid for Twitter:

    Asset management firm Vanguard Group disclosed last week that its funds now own a 10.3 percent stake in Twitter which makes it the largest shareholder.

    Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, who rejected Elon Musk’s offer, has about 5.2 percent share in Twitter.

      1. More likely they see a profit opportunity in an undervalued stock which is a takeover target.

  13. Once upon a time, the United States government broke up monopolies, such as the breakup of the Bell system in January 1982. These “too big to fail” entities create their own weather and reach a point that they can crush opponents like a bug and do as they please.

    What happened to these policies? Has the under the table wink and a nod deals neutralized regulations and politicians?

    If an entity gets this large then should it not be regulated like a utility? Shouldn’t the users have a “bill of rights?”

Comments are closed.